This is a serious question:
“Why can’t the discovery of sarin gas in artillery shells beconsidered proof of the existence of WMD?”
I will grant you, this is certainly not large arsenal, and if I had been asked whether I was willing to go to war over several clandestine artillery shells fill with chemical weapons, I would have answered no. However, that never was the only reason why war in Iraq was justified.
Regardless, I am not sure how you can state that this not proof that there were indeed unaccounted WMD, and who knows how many more there are…
dwight meredith
It is evidence of the existence of sarin which may be considered a WMD. What the discovery can not reasonably be considered is justification for opting to invade Iraq.
Dean
Since when did a chemical weapon (in this case, a nerve agent) NOT be considered a WMD??
You can argue about whether it justifies an invasion, but I’d submit that, so long as WMD has been used (and that dates back AT LEAST to the early 1990s), it has included chemical weapons and ESPECIALLY nerve agents.
the talking dog
There is an argument that from the sarin shell’s condition and location, it was old and no longer particularly usable– i.e., more proof that Saddam simply hadn’t DESTROYED his OLD WMD arsenal (which no one disputes exist) rather than that he had a current and readily deployable arsenal, i.e. ready to deploy in under 40 minutes as the soon to be former British Prime Minister asserted.
Certainly, the records the Saddam Hussein regime produced were consistent with having failed to destroy lots of these chem and bio agents.
Jim Henley of Unqualified Offerings has pointed out, correctly, that other than civilians trapped in a confined space (say, Halabja for example), the chem and bio weapons tend to be of most limited battlefield and military utility: they disperse very rapidly. Even from a terrorist standpoint, the sarin release in Tokyo– just about the world’s most crowded city– only killed 5 or 6 people.
However, NUCLEAR WEAPONS– they are legitimately lethal in all circumstances, of course– and are much, much more troublesome.
The irony is that by chosing the Iraq war, we may have opened the door toward MORE nuclear proliferation rather than less.
I think we have established long ago that whoever wants to justify this war will find reasons to do so, and the rest of us have long since established the contrary position to our satisfaction. However, this old, corroding sarin shell shouldn’t serve as a justification for anything.
Watcher
Sure Dwight… keep clinging to the notion that Bush just dreamed up the whole thing.
GrantR
Talking dog, how has this opened the door for MORE nuclear proliferation? There is now no chance that Saddam will go for nuclear weapons, as he could have done once the sanctions were lifted or he got the weapons inspectors out. So nuclear proliferation has been stopped, or prevented from happening in the future, in Iraq.
Syria is now the result of sanctions, and Bush has spoken very harshly of them. And syria knows that now the US, because of our actions in Iraq, won’t be afraid to back up our harsh words with actions, despite what the rest of the world may think.
Qaddhafi has given up chem weapons because he was scared of what Bush might do, so I doubt that he will go nuclear, as long as we don’t turn our back on this snake.
A top Pakistani scientist has come clean about selling nuclear secrets on the black market, and so that is being sealed up.
How can it be said that the war is leading to more nuclear proliferation?
DoubleStandard
Let not get ahead of ourselves.
Rummy, Kimmet and other DoD officials are not even calling this finding a whiff of a smoking gun.
Anyway, I thought Bush et. al had given up on the WMD claim and that the new talking points are “freedom” and “democracy”
DoubleStandard
Since March 2003, I have been waiting for the Bush Press Conference where he will show the world Iraqi WMD’s
I am still waiting.
Even the DoD has said this is most likely from a pre-1991 stockpile.
The should know since the USA, Europe and Russia have the return receipts.
timekeeper
DS:
Even the DoD has said this is most likely from a pre-1991 stockpile.
…Which Saddam was obligated to destroy. He had 12 years to do so, and obviously it didn’t happen.
The should know since the USA, Europe and Russia have the return receipts.
You need to leave the US out of that equation, because they most assuredly did NOT. Not the US government, nor any (legally operating) private concern. In fact, several times the US government prevented transfers of such equipment. France, Germany, and Russia, OTOH, are guilty as charged, and their complicity was part of the reason behind their hysrterical opposition to the war.
timekeeper
Oops, John’s disabled *all* HTML.
The “Even the US…” and “The should know” lines are quotes from a DS post immediately preceding mine.
Kimmitt
I don’t think anyone was contending that there did not exist the possibility of a few lost shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war turning up.
Dean
Kimmitt:
In a totalitarian country, what are the chances that a few WMD are going to just be “lost”?
Or, to put it differently, do you think it really more likely these were simply misplaced, as opposed to hidden?
I mean, if they were that easily hidden, don’t you think the likes of Saddam, Uday, or Qusay might worry that it might be used against THEM one of these days?
Kimmitt
I think that in a totalitarian country, just like everywhere else, shit gets lost during wars. Or maybe someone dug up some unexploded ordinance. Or maybe someone had a really scary souveneir. I’m just saying — given the large number of shells used in the Iran-Iraq war, it was a given that at least a few were still in circulation, no matter what.
Perhaps this is some harbinger of great caches yet to be found — who knows? But the shell’s existence (and poor usage by the folks who used it) is consistent with a fairly common-sense explanation.
Mike
It’s not from an old stockpile, and it’s not from the Iran-Iraq war. Blaster already debunked those quite nicely (http://www.overpressure.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.html#000819); the munition is a binary 155mm artillery shell, which Saddam never declared. He never declared any Sarin, either. And according to the cease-fire agreement, he had fifteen DAYS to declare and destroy all WMDs upon agreeing to the cease-fire. As noted above, the anitwar folks had granted him twelve YEARS, with the promise of extending indefinitely via the UselessN. Not that any of these facts will matter one bit to the Ostrich Left.
Mike
Clarification: it was known that Saddam had produced Sarin in the mid-80’s, but I’m pretty sure it was found by the inspectors and not declared by Saddam. I might be wrong on that, but the rest of it stands as posted.
Dean
But, see Mike, totalitarian countries, they let WMD get outta hand, b/c, well, b/c their leadership is so secure, er, uhm, no, b/c they know that terrorists would never get their hands on, uh, hmmm, b/c popular support would never allow such things to be used against them, er,
BUSH LIED!
BUSH LIED!
CadillaqJaq
It’s obvious from some of the posts here that finding any form of WMD, whether it be “old” or any other convenient label, the extreme left will refuse to recognize it for what it is, a WMD, because it doesn’t fit in their current agenda; the destruction/removal of GWB and his administration.
Now let’s get back to Abu Ghraib…
Andrew J. Lazarus
Saddam doesn’t seem to use bar-coded inventory control. Given that the insurgents who used the shell didn’t appear to know what they had, I’d say it’s almost certainly been sitting ummarked in an ammuuntion depot for a very long time. I’m not surpised (indeed, I expected) this sort of junk to turn up, but it’s not a WMD arsenal in any sense even the Administration wishes to portray it. (Of course, they may also be protecting themselves against another false positive.)
IXLNXS
Because one shell could have been rucked in by anyone with a large basket. It proves only that someone found something. Not that it existed when the WMD claims were made, nor that it is from a larger stockpile. It in and of itself proves nothing. Ergo the ongoing battle of left and right claiming Mission Un/Accomplished.
Far North
At least we didn’t have to endure Wolfe Blitzer or FOX news say:
“In what could very well be the smoking gun the Bush administration was looking for, US forces have uncovered multiple blah blah blah…………”
Of course, nothing ever came of these “discoveries” and no follow up stories were ever done. From May 2003 until they gave up on their hope that something, ANYTHING, would be found, Bush apologists have hyped every report, no matter how inconsequential, that referred to the beloved WMD.
It’ll take quite a bit more than a little junk left over from Gulf War 1 to make your case, folks. This stuff looses potency faster than an Ann Coulter lie. Get over it. It ain’t your friggin “smoking gun”
Mike
See? Far North just proved our point yet again, Dean. “Bush was never actually obliged to prove anything at all – Saddam was? And he did no such thing? Why, obviously these goalposts are in the wrong place, guys! Lend us a hand here and let’s get ’em moved…”
These days “dialoguing” with the Left is like trying to argue logically with a five year old. A depressing thought, but it’s the damnable truth.
Kimmitt
You’re right that arguing Left-Right is like talking to an intemperate five year old, but you’re badly wrong on the identities.
There is exactly one thing which will demonstrate that Saddam had anything resembling significant stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons — the discovery of something resembling a significant stockpile of chemical or biological weapons. One shell of unknown provenance just does not even vaguely fit the requirements.
We did not go to war because Bush said Saddam had a half-dozen shells with Sarin gas in them (maybe). We went to war because Bush said that he was a threat to the United States with connections to Al-Qaeda.
MDtoMN
If the case for war had been made solely on the pressence of WMD in Iraq, with no reference to Nuclear weapons or huge stock piles, this would probably mean a lot more.
If we could be at all certain this WMD was actually developed in Iraq by Saddam Hussien, this would mean a lot more.
If we found a lot more stuff like this, this would mean a lot more.
If 35% of the Country didn’t already believe we had found WMD in Iraq (erroneously), this would mean a lot more for public oppinion.